Carlos Alvarez - California Governor Candidate PSL/Peace and Freedom Party

[leninfan]

What is your scoop on this guy? He seems legit.

[Lolshevik]

I would vote the shit out of him if I lived in California.

If you're in that state, I say volunteer. You don't have to be full on-board with the PSL's politics to support a class candidate against the bourgeoisie.

[Rusty Shackleford]

My candidate, and comrade :D

Carlos alvarez has been doing a lot of work. He even went to Phoenix AZ to help organize the Anti-SB 1070 rallies and to help out PSL comrades in Arizona.

Hes also a union worker and openly homosexual. organized LGBT rallies and so on.

So yeah, if i could vote multiple times, say a few million times, i would. and Marylou Cabral who is running for Secretary of State.
http://www.pslweb.org/images/content/pagebuilder/46264.jpg
Since this is primarily about Alvarez, ill just link this bio of Marylou Cabral. (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13437)

Here is Carlos's bio.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13439

http://www.pslweb.org/images/content/pagebuilder/51233.jpg


Carlos Alvarez, 23, is seeking the Peace and Freedom Party's 2010 nomination for governor of California. He is a grocery worker at Vons/Pavillions, and a member of United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 770, in Los Angeles. He is also a member of PFP and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Alvarez ran a dynamic campaign for mayor of Los Angeles in 2009 as an openly socialist candidate. He participated in over 20 town hall meetings and debates, where he fought against racism and in favor of the rights of workers. At each of his appearances he identified as a member of Peace and Freedom and PSL. Alvarez also appeared on KTLA's Good Day LA program, NBC and CBS news, NPR, and in the LA Times on a weekly basis. He received a higher percentage of votes than any socialist candidate for mayor since 1957. Click here to see the archive from that campaign (http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=carlosformayor_archive).
Alvarez's central campaign demand was "People over profits: jobs, education, housing, health care for all!" His campaign called for full employment--decent jobs for all, including job training for youth and the unemployed; the immediate end to all foreclosures and evictions in L.A.; making empty homes and apartments available for the homeless; free, preventive, emergency and long term health care services to all; free, high-quality education; expanded and free mass transit throughout the city; and a livable, sustainable environment.
Alvarez also campaigned to stop the racism and bigotry that emanates from city government and institutions. His campaign called for community control over the police, an end to police brutality and impunity, and full rights for all people, including undocumented immigrants. Alvarez has long been an advocate of full equality for all.
Alvarez is an anti-war activist and leader of the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). He has helped bring tens of thousands of people to the streets to stop the Iraq war, to fight California's anti-same-sex mar- riage Proposition 8, and to demand an end to the U.S.-backed Israeli massacre of the Palestinian people. Alvarez, the son of hard-working immigrants from El Salvador, is a life-long resident of Los Angeles. He grew up in South L.A., is fluent in Spanish, and has long been recognized as an organizer in his community.
In January 2009, Alvarez led a protest of 10,000 people to demand an end to the U.S.-backed Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Just two months later, Alvarez organized a march of 4,000 people against the Iraq war. As a principal leader of the immigrant rights movement, Alvarez mobilized support for the largest pro-immigrant protests in L.A. history and organized resistance against the racist, anti-immigrant Minuteman Project and mobilized support for the May 1, 2006 boycott demanding immigrant rights. In April 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 15,000 immi- grant workers at a mass march and rally in Los Angeles, as a member of the Full Rights for Immigrants Coalition. Alvarez, who is openly gay, is also a leading figure in the LGBT movement for marriage equality and equal rights. In November 2008, just four days after the passage of bigoted Prop. 8, Alvarez led the largest pro-LGBT march in Los Angeles history, with 20,000 people attending in the Silver Lake neighborhood. In June 2009, after months of organ- izing with a huge coalition of LGBT activists, Alvarez led major actions in East Los Angeles and West Hollywood, along with the Latino Equality Alliance and other LGBT groups.
As a working-class candidate from a poor neighborhood, Alvarez understands that the State of California's economic woes should not be shouldered by working people. The current governor's solution to California's massive budget shortfall has been to ram through cutbacks, layoffs and flat taxes that hit the poor hardest. Alvarez rejects these measures and instead calls for forcing the state's richest banks and corporations to pay their share. Alvarez is a candidate that is already advocating for the interests of the vast majority of California's residents. Glroia LaRiva is running for Congressional District 8 in San Francisco but that is a very specific voting area.

And also, Corey Ansel is running in the 22nd congressional District in Ohio.

[graymouser]

It's the PSL - the campaign is going to be mostly a question of party-building and propaganda. The truth is, if you support the PSL's politics, you should support it. If you don't - even part way - the honest thing to do is not support the campaign. The PSL does not have a mass working-class base that you are going to be in touch with through this campaign, and a few votes adds little to the larger struggle for socialism.

If this sounds sectarian - well, I'm just trying to be honest. If you don't support the actual politics of the PSL, warts and all, then you shouldn't critically support a campaign of theirs when it doesn't some mass of people behind it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's the PSL - the campaign is going to be mostly a question of party-building and propaganda. The truth is, if you support the PSL's politics, you should support it. If you don't - even part way - the honest thing to do is not support the campaign. The PSL does not have a mass working-class base that you are going to be in touch with through this campaign, and a few votes adds little to the larger struggle for socialism.

If this sounds sectarian - well, I'm just trying to be honest. If you don't support the actual politics of the PSL, warts and all, then you shouldn't critically support a campaign of theirs when it doesn't some mass of people behind it.
How can you expect a mass base if the party formed 6 years ago and NO OTHER PARTY has a mass base, even though they have been around for decades.


A vote hardly means anything if you are voting for the usuals, but if you are voting for an open socialist, it means much more.


Also, if i lived in Vermont, and there were no other actual socialists i would still vote for the left-most politician ala bernie sanders. even though hes a damn left-democrat.

if the PSL wasnt running anyone, id vote for the SP-USA candidate or if the ISO were in the PFP and had a candidate, id vote for them. simple as that. only thing is i probably wouldn't work their campaigns.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Socialist? Check.
Working-class? Check.
Unionist? Check.
Homosexual? Check.
Not White? Check.

The bourgeoisie are shaking in their boots as we speak.

[Kassad]

And also, Corey Ansel is running in the 22nd congressional District in Ohio.

To build on that:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=voteansel

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs472.snc3/25867_10150171967325313_896555312_11448061_5617917 _n.jpg


Meet Corey Ansel
Candidate for Ohio State Representative (District 22)

To get involved in this PSL campaign call: 614-226-7807

Corey Ansel, 18, is the Green Party nominee for state representative in Ohio, district 22. He is a student from Columbus, Ohio and a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Ansel is a volunteer organizer with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition. He has organized many events and demonstrations in his area to oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and in support of a free Palestine. Ansel is working build a Midwest Regional antiwar march in Chicago on Saturday, October 16 as well.

His socialist campaign will demand universal healthcare for all and will defend the right to free, quality education for all people. Ansel's campaign will demand an immediate end to education cuts and unemployment and will stand resolutely with all workers who demand the right to unionize and a living wage.

Ansel's Campaign Stands For ...

** Full employment—no layoffs. Job training for youth & unemployed.
** Fight Racism! Stop Police Brutality!
** Housing is a right for all—Immediate moratorium on all foreclosures & evictions.
** Free, high quality education from pre-school through college for everyone.
** Free, quality healthcare for all Ohio residents.
** No to U.S. Imperialism: U.S. Out of Iraq & Afghanistan; End the Occupation of Palestine; U.S. Hands Off Iran!
** Raise Ohio's minimum wage to $15/hour.
** Full federal equality for all immigrants and all LGBT people now!
** We need an economy based on people’s needs, not making the rich richer!

[graymouser]

How can you expect a mass base if the party formed 6 years ago and NO OTHER PARTY has a mass base, even though they have been around for decades.
Well, I don't support other tiny groups' runs for political office either. My comment was mostly a reply to Lolshevik's, as I don't see critical support of tiny parties without mass bases as being worthwhile in most tactical situations.


A vote hardly means anything if you are voting for the usuals, but if you are voting for an open socialist, it means much more.
I've voted for open socialists (SPUSA and SWP) in the past. They got tiny numbers of votes, you'd have to scour obscure third-party advocacy sites to find the actual numbers. (I also voted for a guy who calls himself NJWEEDMAN.) It doesn't "mean much more" than a vote within the Democratic or Republican parties - it's a relatively futile protest gesture and accomplishes nothing.


if the PSL wasnt running anyone, id vote for the SP-USA candidate or if the ISO were in the PFP and had a candidate, id vote for them. simple as that. only thing is i probably wouldn't work their campaigns.
Right, and I wouldn't volunteer for any of them (contra Lolshevik). Like I said, this is a party-building campaign; there's nothing wrong in principle with such campaigns, although I think left electoralism is a disease the Europeans have pretty badly.

[Kassad]

Do you seriously think we run in the elections to win and get votes? No. We run in the elections to raise awareness about what socialism is and provide an alternative for workers. Elections have been a really good way for us to get in touch with activists who ultimately join our party. That's why we're one of the fastest growing and most active Marxist groups right now -- we know how to appeal to workers and we don't cling to idealism. It's not difficult. The PSL is running Corey Ansel for Ohio State Representative. The branch in Columbus went from having 2 supporters to nearly a dozen, many of which are joining the PSL. That happened in about the course of 5 months.

Our activism speaks.

[KC]

What happens if they get elected?

[graymouser]

Do you seriously think we run in the elections to win and get votes? No.
Hey, if this is directed at me, I came right out and said that this was a party-building campaign, and honestly I think it's great that you are being straightforward about it. Your comrade above, though, said that voting for "open socialist" candidates "means much more." I had to differ with him on that.

[Kassad]

What happens if they get elected?

Then they'll stand by their platform and defend socialism? Of course, we're a revolutionary Marxist party and our demands can not be met by the capitalist system.

[KC]

Then they'll stand by their platform and defend socialism? Of course, we're a revolutionary Marxist party and our demands can not be met by the capitalist system.

And when they're delegitimized by their inability to do anything within their government position? What then?

[Kassad]

And when they're delegitimized by their inability to do anything within their government position? What then?

Or we'd acknowledge the fact that we need socialist revolution to abolish the shortcomings of bourgeois elections and capitalism, as stated in our party's document "Why we're running in the elections", which we published in 2008. Do you think before you post?

[Crux]

And when they're delegitimized by their inability to do anything within their government position? What then?
An elected position can become a platform for agitation that reach outside the given parliament, in fact that is how I think it should be used. I could take many example from our own elected representatives here in sweden if you like, who by the way got re-elected with increased votes in the last elections.

[KC]

Or we'd acknowledge the fact that we need socialist revolution to abolish the shortcomings of bourgeois elections and capitalism, as stated in our party's document "Why we're running in the elections", which we published in 2008. Do you think before you post?

Do you see how Mayakovskij gave an answer without being a huge dickhead? You could learn a few things from him.

[Kassad]

Do you see how Mayakovskij gave an answer without being a huge dickhead? You could learn a few things from him.

You could learn a few things if you actually had any idea what you were talking about when it came to the PSL.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hey, if this is directed at me, I came right out and said that this was a party-building campaign, and honestly I think it's great that you are being straightforward about it. Your comrade above, though, said that voting for "open socialist" candidates "means much more." I had to differ with him on that.
let me go into detail so i dont seem like one who believes that voting for a socialist is the only way things are to be done.

What i meant by that is:

voting for a bourgeois politician means nothing, its expected.

Voting for a socialist brings attention to socialism, therefore it has greater effect with the more votes a socialist gets.

it has more weight to it than voting for repub or dem. sadly, it takes a lot of votes for it to garner major headlines which is why i would like for people to vote socialist.

socialism has only been portrayed negatively. if a ton of people vote socialist, it forces people to discuss its merits because obviously if thousands support it, theres something there.

Yes, this is a party building and socialism spreading campaign. i didnt deny that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, I don't support other tiny groups' runs for political office either. My comment was mostly a reply to Lolshevik's, as I don't see critical support of tiny parties without mass bases as being worthwhile in most tactical situations.


I've voted for open socialists (SPUSA and SWP) in the past. They got tiny numbers of votes, you'd have to scour obscure third-party advocacy sites to find the actual numbers. (I also voted for a guy who calls himself NJWEEDMAN.) It doesn't "mean much more" than a vote within the Democratic or Republican parties - it's a relatively futile protest gesture and accomplishes nothing.


Right, and I wouldn't volunteer for any of them (contra Lolshevik). Like I said, this is a party-building campaign; there's nothing wrong in principle with such campaigns, although I think left electoralism is a disease the Europeans have pretty badly.


im double posting and im sorry.

anyways, your argument has merit. and yes, socialist dont get many votes. we arent banking on this though. currently were emphasizing the campaign because it gives our message a louder voice.

but, were continuing in many other struggles from MUNI(local) to anti-SB 1070(national)


aslo, im still only a candidate so im not the best at advocating and defending the PSL and its line quite yet. if that means anything:blushing:

[Lolshevik]

graymouser: Mass parties do not appear overnight. Socialist campaigns that even get a few percentage points have an impact greater than their numbers would suggest in popularizing the ideals of socialism. If Workers' Power ran a candidate for Governor of California, would you have this same playing-down-the-fact attitude?

[graymouser]

graymouser: Mass parties do not appear overnight. Socialist campaigns that even get a few percentage points have an impact greater than their numbers would suggest in popularizing the ideals of socialism. If Workers' Power ran a candidate for Governor of California, would you have this same playing-down-the-fact attitude?
The truth is, campaigns by tiny socialist groups do relatively little to build the popularity of "socialism" as such. What they do is build the reputation and credibility of the particular group running them - in this case, that means the PSL. For an organization to give critical support to the PSL, fundamentally means you're coming out in support of their politics. Since there is not a layer of workers following the PSL, there is really no base that such critical support is targeted at.

If Workers Power ran a campaign in any state, we would take the approach already suggested by Kassad and Majakovskij: we would only be running for propaganda value, and if we won the office would be used as a revolutionary tribune like the Bolsheviks did in the prewar Russian Duma.

[Obs]

The truth is, campaigns by tiny socialist groups do relatively little to build the popularity of "socialism" as such. What they do is build the reputation and credibility of the particular group running them - in this case, that means the PSL. For an organization to give critical support to the PSL, fundamentally means you're coming out in support of their politics. Since there is not a layer of workers following the PSL, there is really no base that such critical support is targeted at.

If Workers Power ran a campaign in any state, we would take the approach already suggested by Kassad and Majakovskij: we would only be running for propaganda value, and if we won the office would be used as a revolutionary tribune like the Bolsheviks did in the prewar Russian Duma.
How many workers have to be in a party before you consider it to have a "layer of workers" following them? What does "layer" even mean in this context?

[graymouser]

How many workers have to be in a party before you consider it to have a "layer of workers" following them? What does "layer" even mean in this context?
How many? This is a question of relationships to actual social forces, not an algebraic formula of magic numbers. For instance, if Workers Power and the PSL were both active in, say, Los Angeles and a good number of Latino immigrants had serious illusions in the PSL, to the point where the bulk of the work was being done by nonparty supporters, it would make sense for us to intervene. We would do so in a way that laid our criticism bare, hoping to engage these workers in serious dialog. But that's not the character of PSL campaigns at this time.

Critical support without such forces behind an election means you're endorsing their politics, because the campaign is basically just the PSL. Historically, for instance, there were places where the SWP Presidential candidacy of Peter Camejo in 1976 had a broader social base (I'm thinking specifically in Arizona, but there may have been others) and an intervention could have made sense from the point of view of a fighting propaganda group. But the 2008 campaign of Roger Calero from the same party had a different character, since the SWP no longer had any social base and was basically running one of these propaganda campaigns. These are nuanced questions, and always have to relate to the balance of actual forces within a campaign.

[leninfan]

Well it sounds like Carlos has it going on. I hope to meet him on October 16th in San Diego if all goes well on my proposed Alt Debate with the 4 candidates who were left out of the Whitman/Brown debate.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=127945070589297&ref=ts

[KurtFF8]

How many? This is a question of relationships to actual social forces, not an algebraic formula of magic numbers. For instance, if Workers Power and the PSL were both active in, say, Los Angeles and a good number of Latino immigrants had serious illusions in the PSL, to the point where the bulk of the work was being done by nonparty supporters, it would make sense for us to intervene. We would do so in a way that laid our criticism bare, hoping to engage these workers in serious dialog. But that's not the character of PSL campaigns at this time.

Critical support without such forces behind an election means you're endorsing their politics, because the campaign is basically just the PSL. Historically, for instance, there were places where the SWP Presidential candidacy of Peter Camejo in 1976 had a broader social base (I'm thinking specifically in Arizona, but there may have been others) and an intervention could have made sense from the point of view of a fighting propaganda group. But the 2008 campaign of Roger Calero from the same party had a different character, since the SWP no longer had any social base and was basically running one of these propaganda campaigns. These are nuanced questions, and always have to relate to the balance of actual forces within a campaign.

You didn't really answer the question here though. The PSL's base is indeed the working class, which includes its membership. Is it the composition of its actual exisitng base that you're being critical of here? Or is it just the fact that the PSL has failed to achieve hegemony (or anything near this) in the working class movement in the United States itself?